Bombay High Court
PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 MUMBAIversusSTRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD AY 2016-17
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A delay of 62 days is condonable under Section 260A where sufficient cause is shown and the delay is not gross.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 62‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, Strides Pharma Science Ltd., did not oppose the application. The Court examined the memorandum and found the delay not gross and the reasons provided sufficient. It held that justice required condoning the delay. Consequently, the application was allowed and the interim application was disposed without costs, with a direction to remove any office objections within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 62 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Act
- Section 260A
- appeal procedure
- civil procedure
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
301-IA 2293-24.DOC
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.08.24
12:59:16
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2293 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 18290 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Strides Pharma Science Ltd. ...Respondent
_________
Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Nishit Gandhi with Ms. Angel Moru for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 21 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this interim application which
is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act. The delay prayed for to be condoned is of 62 days. There
is no written opposition filed to this application by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and
considering the period of delay not being gross, in our opinion, the reasons as set out
certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by the
applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of justice
that the delay is condoned.
3. The application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim
application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
4. Let the office objections, if any, be removed within a period of 8 weeks from
today.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
21 August 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.